By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Halo: MCC servers are down - improvements been made - problems persists

bananaking21 on 04 February 2015
walsufnir said:


I only know how it worked on 360: You had cumulative and differential patches, meaning the patch only includes differences in the executable (was changed after, there were some patches which indeed were several hundred mb's) and if there are, let's say, 6 patches available, you only download one which includes all and it seemed even there it was differential meaning you only get prompted once after buying and get all current patches in a small package.

As I understand it, there isn't necessarily the publisher to blame but especially Sony and MS. Publishers can only work within the setting both provide.

thats true, its more on sony and MS. but i feel the publsihers and devs (funny, in this case its both MS and sony). are to blame as well. they are the ones releasing broken games. i hope this situation gets better, i really do. because i dont see my self buying a game that has a 20 or 30 giggs of patches.



Around the Network
DonFerrari on 04 February 2015
ethomaz said:

DonFerrari said:

I know at least one user that would say it was unaceptable to release MP with problems and that the code is quite simple to do and server needs to predict and how azzure is perfect When bashing  DC. Would be silent for mcc. And when confronted would deflect saying even if DC online were fully working they still owe the ps+ edition and is boring (pretending DC MP is still bad) and mcc is great and fun even if MP have some minor issues (while downplaying mcc online problems).

Neither situation can be acceptable... DC, MCC, AC, BF4, etc... the industry is moving for a dying low quality of delivery.

Ridiculous.


Agree with you. I don't bitch much because I play only SP and from these game bought DC which have a solid SP (had one minor bug with a mission not registering once) but as whole packages all 4 are sad excuses. Hope all the devs up their games quality or leave the market (like go do B budget).



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari on 04 February 2015
bananaking21 said:
walsufnir said:


Especially for people who have limited data plans and intentionally buy games on discs, this is not exceptable. Especially MS is doing a bad job here, 360 had relatively small patches and a cumulative patching system. This gen both platforms seem to exchange more than just the executable and I think we should get some info what is going wrong in this case.


its a problem with both MS/Sony and the publishers them selfs. i dont know about the XB1 much, but the PS4 up until recently i remember used to add previous patches with the new patch every time one released. meaning, if patch one was 1GB, and patch two was 2 GB, then when you download patch two you download one and two together, and end up downloading 3GB. and so on. which was a fucking joke. 

AC Unity had to repatch and redownload the entire fucking game on XB1... this is beyond unacceptable. these publishers are patching their incompetence on the consumers time and money. as you said, some people have limited data caps (up until recently i did as well) and now some people have to take into consideration the money they are gonna spend on these patches as well as the game its self. its a joke. 

I don't think the stacking is mandatory on ps3 (not sure on ps4). At least on gran turismo 6 I had my game patched up to 6 and it download individuallyfrom 7 to 12 and installed each (the sizes varied and some of the newer patches were smaller than the older)... Gt 5 was the same, don't know about others.

 

But for me the most mind bloging part is that some 1y old games on psn needs to install all patches after you install the game. Why not let we chose to download the patched version?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

walsufnir on 04 February 2015
DonFerrari said:
bananaking21 said:


its a problem with both MS/Sony and the publishers them selfs. i dont know about the XB1 much, but the PS4 up until recently i remember used to add previous patches with the new patch every time one released. meaning, if patch one was 1GB, and patch two was 2 GB, then when you download patch two you download one and two together, and end up downloading 3GB. and so on. which was a fucking joke. 

AC Unity had to repatch and redownload the entire fucking game on XB1... this is beyond unacceptable. these publishers are patching their incompetence on the consumers time and money. as you said, some people have limited data caps (up until recently i did as well) and now some people have to take into consideration the money they are gonna spend on these patches as well as the game its self. its a joke. 

I don't think the stacking is mandatory on ps3 (not sure on ps4). At least on gran turismo 6 I had my game patched up to 6 and it download individuallyfrom 7 to 12 and installed each (the sizes varied and some of the newer patches were smaller than the older)... Gt 5 was the same, don't know about others.

 

But for me the most mind bloging part is that some 1y old games on psn needs to install all patches after you install the game. Why not let we chose to download the patched version?


What?! Ok, this at least does the 360. If you download a game it comes with all current patches. This should tell us why we should avoid an all digital future, the companies just aren't ready for this. After they get their stuff right, we as consumers could consider going all digital.



DonFerrari on 04 February 2015
walsufnir said:
DonFerrari said:

I don't think the stacking is mandatory on ps3 (not sure on ps4). At least on gran turismo 6 I had my game patched up to 6 and it download individuallyfrom 7 to 12 and installed each (the sizes varied and some of the newer patches were smaller than the older)... Gt 5 was the same, don't know about others.

 

But for me the most mind bloging part is that some 1y old games on psn needs to install all patches after you install the game. Why not let we chose to download the patched version?


What?! Ok, this at least does the 360. If you download a game it comes with all current patches. This should tell us why we should avoid an all digital future, the companies just aren't ready for this. After they get their stuff right, we as consumers could consider going all digital.


I can't point a specific game since I don't remember but I have download like several games either in ps+ or bought in promos that after downloading I would try to run it and received the notification that patches were needed. Infuriating, if all xbl games are all patched to at least 1 month old patches that is a gigantic positive Point for MS in my book.

 

I abhor digital only future. If with disks we already have problems because of patches, downtime, banning, etc I don't want to imagine those companies with full control.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
ethomaz on 04 February 2015

PS4 patch system is not cumulative anymore.

It was until middle of the last year only and I never dowloaded these huge patches like Xbone... Unity patchSo on PS4 is way way way smaller than on Xbone.



walsufnir on 04 February 2015
ethomaz said:
PS4 patch system is not cumulative anymore.

It was until middle of the last year only and I never dowloaded these huge patches like Xbone... Unity patchSo on PS4 is way way way smaller than on Xbone.


We should make a list about how big the patches are in more games than Unity alone.



ethomaz on 04 February 2015
walsufnir said:
ethomaz said:
PS4 patch system is not cumulative anymore.

It was until middle of the last year only and I never dowloaded these huge patches like Xbone... Unity patchSo on PS4 is way way way smaller than on Xbone.


We should make a list about how big the patches are in more games than Unity alone.

GTAV 1.14GB

Far Cry 4 657MB

 

I can go on... these are the last eat patches in these games.



ethomaz on 04 February 2015

Ohhhhhh I forget to say.

You can play any PS4 games without the patches



walsufnir on 04 February 2015
ethomaz said:
Ohhhhhh I forget to say.

You can play any PS4 games without the patches


Why would you do so? 

As I don't have any next-gen system you should talk to a potential Xbox one guy regarding patch sizes. But as we can see these patches are ridiculously high. I downloaded many patches for my 360 lower than 10MB.